Trump administration held talks with Iran on deporting Iranians during the war, court documents show

Deporting someone through a third country means sending them to a country other than the person’s own homeland, instead of flying them directly home. The destination is the key difference. A direct deportation ends in the person’s country of citizenship, while a third-country removal ends elsewhere. The article says the administration planned to deport Iranians through an unnamed third country, although it did not say when. It also describes removals to countries with no connection to the people, including El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama, and the Central African Republic. This approach can bypass practical or diplomatic barriers when a home government will not accept deportees. It does not automatically settle safety or legal questions. The judge required 24-hour notice of finalized plans and five days’ written notice before any deportation.

More than 100 Iranians had already been returned to Iran on three immigration flights described in the court filings. That figure is significant because deportations to Iran have historically been unusual, given the countries’ lack of diplomatic relations and concerns about persecution. The flights were arranged through cooperation between U.S. immigration officials and Iranian officials. Hundreds of emails showed officials working together to identify people in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody, submit travel documents, and organize their return. The flights took place in September and December 2025 and January 2026. The newer court documents indicate that contacts over removals continued even while the war was underway. They also show the administration discussing possible future removals through an unnamed third country, although the timing of those plans was unclear.

The cooperation involved U.S. immigration agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, officials within the Department of Homeland Security, and the Justice Department, alongside Iranian officials. The article does not identify the Iranian officials by name. Their work focused on removing Iranians held in ICE custody. Officials exchanged travel documents and discussed “possible avenues for removal,” including direct returns and possible third-country destinations. Hundreds of emails described coordination for more than 100 people sent to Iran on three immigration flights. The lawsuit also alleges that U.S. immigration agencies shared confidential information about Iranian asylum seekers with Iran and pressured detainees to return. DHS denied sharing asylum application records. In court, Justice Department attorney Dimitar Georgiev-Remmel defended the removals as execution of lawful orders.

Deportations to Iran have historically been rare because the United States and Iran lack diplomatic relations. The article also cites the risk of persecution for people sent back. During the war, Judge Ana Reyes said Iran was an enemy of the United States and described it as essentially lawless, based on statements by President Donald Trump. She also referred to the reported killing of tens of thousands of protesters. Those conditions made returning people especially dangerous, in the judge’s view. Activists abroad warned about deportees returning to Iran, where the theocracy has been cracking down on intellectuals and dissent. The court transcript records the judge saying returnees faced, at minimum, a serious threat of certain death. The Justice Department attorney replied that the government was executing lawful removal orders.

U.S. law generally protects eligible people from being sent to places where they face persecution, torture, or death. The main safeguards include asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. These protections are different, but each can limit removal when the person faces serious danger. Asylum can provide protection to someone persecuted or threatened because of protected grounds. Withholding of removal can prevent return when persecution is more likely than not. Convention Against Torture protection applies when torture is likely, including through government action or acquiescence. The article describes an ongoing lawsuit involving Iranian asylum seekers and allegations that confidential information was shared with Iran. It does not identify which legal protection each person claimed or whether any individual had won protection. The judge’s order added notice requirements while the case continues.

When a destination country will not accept a deportee, removal can become difficult or impossible to carry out directly. The article says the Trump administration has responded by sending people to countries other than their own, including countries with no connection to them. It identifies El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Panama as countries that accepted noncitizens from the United States during Trump’s second term. The administration also deported an Iranian woman among two dozen migrants to the Central African Republic in June. These arrangements can bypass diplomatic hurdles created by governments that refuse to take their nationals back or by the absence of diplomatic relations. The article says the administration planned to use an unnamed third country for some Iranians. It does not identify that country or explain whether those plans were completed.

Iranians returned to Iran could face persecution and severe repression. The article says Iran’s theocracy has been cracking down on intellectuals and dissent, while activists abroad have expressed concern about deportees. Judge Ana Reyes warned that people sent back during the war faced, at minimum, a serious threat of certain death. The judge ordered the government to provide 24-hour notice of any finalized plan to deport Iranians to Iran or another country. The government must also give five days’ written notice before carrying out such a deportation. These requirements give the court an opportunity to review proposed removals. The article does not state a specific punishment or automatic result if officials violate the order. It does show that the deportation plans remain connected to an ongoing lawsuit and subject to court oversight.